My email service has taken a dive this afternoon and evening but I felt I
ought to acknowledge that I see that there is something on its way that is
addressed to me.
When it arrives I will address it appropriately. If it hasn't got to my
inbox by morning I'll search the archives. I know it's odd that Jocelyn's
message has arrived but not the one from Jim but that's the web and
Microsoft for you.
In any case Jocelyn's point of view clearly has my full support and the AI
Newsletter he sends us to is absolutely fascinating. I don't know the word
trombipulative and neither does my dictionary norr any web based dictionary
... it's a word to be found in the newsletter under the heading Elephants
Don't Play Chess. See what I mean by fascinating!
Duncan
-----Original Message-----
From: Economics, business, and related subjects
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jocelyn Paine
Sent: 06 January 2005 17:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Another duncanwil.co.uk update
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Jim Riley wrote:
> Duncan
>
> As two head-strong Tykes, I suggest we are going to have to agree to
> disagree about what constitutes a "fundamental error" when it comes to
> the "science" of charting. For example:
>
> ... [ comments on Duncan's views on charting ]
>
> Finally, I don't object to your making observations (however critical) of
> our resources. What I'm less happy about is the unauthorised and illegal
> copying/reproduction of our copyrighted and trademarked materials in your
> publication titled "ChartingIssues.pdf" on your website. Such practice is
> a bad example for students. Please could I ask you to remove that material
> from your file as soon as possible,
>
Jim
I believe Duncan is here setting a good example for education, not a bad.
One way, though not the only, that research proceeds, is by criticism: a
researcher finds what they perceive to be flaws in some constructed
object, dissect it, and publish the results of the dissection in the hope
that such flaws will be avoided in future. For the criticism to be
intelligible to readers, the thing dissected must be visible. Papers often
comment on earlier publications, quoting portions so that the comments can
be seen alongside the thing commented upon. As long as the papers cite the
source, that's accepted to be OK. What's really setting a bad example to
students is telling them there are some areas of life where criticism must
be moderated because they are not permitted to exhibit the thing they're
criticising. You always have the right to argue back.
For an example of what I mean, see the "AI Alphabet" I've just written, at
http://www.ainewsletter.com/newsletters/aix_0501.htm
I haven't counted how many publications I quoted from, but it's at
least 10. But I've carefully cited the originator of each one. Had I not
been allowed to include those quotes, the feature would have lost much of
its educational value.
> Jim
>
Jocelyn Paine
http://www.j-paine.org/
|